Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
State Farm Sues Apple For Over $75,000, Claims Defective iPhone Caused House Fire
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It may be an issue not even wide spread, but until proved, it's not apples issue. And whether Apple settles of not remains to be seen.(they don't seem to settle)
Apple won't take it to trial if it is obvious they will lose. Apple likely ignored States Farm's initial request for reimbursement so the lawsuit is to get Apple's attention.
If I were Apple I would ignore the request for reimbursement also. Like the other lawsuits reported here on MR, we'll see where this goes.
No. no, not at all, but we should all remember that batteries can be dangerous and exploding ones are not the preserve of our biggest rival.
But the recall was. Again it hasn't been proven an Apple installed battery exploded or burned.
State Farm wouldn't have gone after Apple for this if they didn't have some pretty solid evidence that that was exactly what happened. Fires get investigated by competent people who do this for a living, iPhone was identified as what started the fire. That is likely enough to make Apple legally liable for the fire.
That has nothing to do with this case. Until there is a conclusion one way or another we won't know the details, however I suspect Apple will settle quietly just to get rid of a nuisance suit even if the phone was abused.
[doublepost=1500832429][/doublepost]
See my reply above. I don't know if Apple is legally liable or not of if they will settle just to rid themselves of this.
[doublepost=1500838177][/doublepost]Too bad we can't sue for stupidity
Wisconsin resident Xai Thao and her home insurance provider State Farm have jointly sued Apple for over $75,000 this week, claiming the company sold Thao a defective and dangerous iPhone 4s that started a fire in her home last year.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. district court, alleges the house fire was the direct result of the iPhone's battery short-circuiting and heating up. Thao nor anyone else ever changed the battery in the iPhone, according to the complaint.The complaint reiterates that the design, manufacture, and sale of the iPhone 4s created a "dangerous, unsafe, and defective" condition.
If designed improperly, lithium-ion batteries do have the potential of short-circuiting and catching fire, as Samsung learned the hard way with its recalled Galaxy Note7 last year. But, that hasn't been a widespread issue with the iPhone 4s since it launched in 2011, so this is certainly an isolated incident.
Thao and State Farm are seeking at least $75,000 in damages from Apple, but the exact amount is to be determined if and when the case is heard.
Article Link: Wisconsin Resident Sues Apple For Over $75,000, Claims Defective iPhone Caused House Fire
That's all well and good, but the article says the iPhone "started a fire in the home", not that the home burned down. "Started a fire" could be damage to a table, a mattress or pillow, or just some smoke damage (plus the requisite "pain and suffering" that this "poor" person was tramatized with). Just State Farm's way of getting their money back is all.
Home insurance doesn't pay for a homeowner's pain and suffering.
So it has to be all property related.
Not to mention that the lawsuit itself only talks about property damage.
Last edited:
Forgive me if I am highly skeptical of this person's account. Its a 5 year old phone. I'm sure anything is possible. The useful life of a phone is 3 years tops....in particular for a phone battery. I don't have enough detail to know who was at fault. People can say anything... did they have the proper operating system on the phone. Are we sure none of the hardware was changed including the battery. I'm hesitant to take this person's account as is because of the sheer fact it is a 5 year old phone and Apple hasn't been selling iPhone 4s in ages.
It's not just some person's account. It's a major insurance company and they have the best liability fire investigators around.
As noted many times, the battery was never changed. Again, this is not some individual. The insurance company will have all those ducks in a row, so forum questions about such things seem moot.
Instead, I think the case must revolve around whether or not a defect existed from before the product was sold.
Here we need input from a lawyer. In District Court, is it up to the victim to prove such a defect, or up to the defendant to disprove it? Or does invoking Strict Liability mean it doesn't matter, because the occurrence of the phone fire is proof enough. Anyone? Thanks!
Last edited:
Strict liability for a product means that the plaintiff will need to prove that, more likely than not (that is, its 50.000000001% likely) that there was a defect in the phone when it left Apple's control AND that the fire originated at the phone (it is not enough, by itself, to show that the fire originated at the phone). Apple may avoid liability by proving that, more likely than not, the phone was altered, misused, etc. after it left Apple's control and that such alterations, misuse, etc. caused the fire. Both sides will likely need experts to examine the evidence and render opinions. Whether the "defect" needs to render the product inherently dangerous depends on the law of the individual state (its tougher for the plaintiff to prevail if he/she needs to prove inherent danger above and beyond a technical defect that could have caused the incident). The plaintiff needs only to prove a defect in the specific product he/she owned--not a widespread pattern of problems (although a widespread pattern would help prove a defect in the particular product at issue).
What is always important to remember is that the burden is only more likely than not. The case need not be proven conclusively.
Also, for those that are interested, look up the real story of the McDonalds coffee litigation. It wasn't as frivolous as it's remembered (and I normally work on the defense).
Finally, this story relates only to the pleading stage. Most jurisdictions, including federal court, require only a "short plain statement" of the facts establishing the elements of the cause of action. The meat gets put on the bones through the discovery process, where the facts are tested. The complaint needs only to put the defendant on notice of the general issue.
As noted many times where the battery wasn't changed? Certainly not noted in the story (or else I missed it)
In the second paragraph of the story. Also in the filed complaint that I just posted a link to.
Also, many posts in this thread revolved around people mistakenly reading "never changed" as "never charged."
Thank you for the explanation.
I thought that being Federal, that State law does not apply any more. For example, some states don't require proof of defect, while others do. ??
Including the fact that McDs had quietly paid such burn claims for years, and only balked at the higher medical amount.
Likewise, Apple reportedly used to quietly pay Apple charger fire claims for years, and only stopped fairly recently.
Thank you again. Makes sense.
Ah thanks, I guess this will be examined as part of the proceedings irrespective of what is reported.
The investigators are going by what the person said. State Farm has an interest because they would otherwise be on the hook for $75,000. They are taking people's word for it. Especially since Apple hasn't sold iPhone 4s in ages.
What on earth are you talking about?
Fire investigators do their own determination of an ignition source.
Well, sure. At least that much.
The complaint says the phone was purchased in 2014.
The iPhone 4S wasn't discontinued until September 2014.